First Thoughts
Once in a while, a new product grabs our attention during review. Unfortunately, that is much less often than you might expect. Technology breakthroughs are truly rare, and most of what we see in the technology arena is evolutionary. Technology is also fast moving, so innovation by one player normally finds its way - quickly - to other new products.
It is far too early to draw conclusions about the new Pentax K20D, but we do confess that most of our questions about this new digital SLR have had positive answers. The new 14.6 MP Samsung/Pentax sensor is for real. Noise is admirably low and the CMOS architecture assures extremely low power draw and long battery life.
In early testing there was no substantive difference in image quality from ISO 100 to ISO 1600, which is a noteworthy performance for a sensor with a 14.6 MP resolution. Images were also very usable at ISO3200, even when enlarged. ISO 6400 was not as useful, though small prints and web publishing should be fine with the 6400 setting. Our fear was that Pentax/Samsung had given up the store to have the bragging rights for the highest resolution DSLR in their class, but that is certainly not the case. The image quality was at least as good as a Sony A700, but we have not yet compared results to the Nikon D300.
Pentax K20D features seem to go on and on. In fact it is easy to get lost in all of the extensive image control that is possible with this new camera. Fortunately, Pentax keeps everything under control with their Info button and the most common controls - White Balance, Drive, Flash parameters and ISO - are easily accessed with the Fn (Function) button.
The in-camera image stabilization and sensor cleaning have been improved over the K10D, according to Pentax. We haven't yet tested this claim, but hand-held low light performance was impressive, and dust on the sensor has not been an issue so far. The dust mapping strikes us as a bit gimmicky, but those who work in dusty environments will probably disagree. We weren't anxious, in early testing, to expose the sensor to a lot of dust to test its usefulness.
The new motor lenses are something of a revelation. Our 16-50mm f2.8 was completely silent and very fast. Compared to the record-setting speed of the Canon 40D and Olympus E-3, the motor lens performance gave up nothing to the Ultrasonic or SWM motors. Non-motor lenses were reasonably fast, but no real competition for the best from others. They were also a great deal noisier as we have seen on screw-drive AF lenses from Sony and others. Pentax needs to introduce more SDM lenses as soon as possible. Once you use one it is hard to go back to screw-drive AF even on a good lens like the 50mm f1.4.
Overall, we found the K20D exciting in early testing. The combination of a 14.6 MP low-noise CMOS sensor; a dust/splash-sealed body, grip, and lenses; and the new SDM motor lenses is very satisfying. This is not the camera for sports shooters, as the 3FPS shooting speed will be laughable to action shooters. However, the incredible feature set, useful and unique program modes, and solid construction and performance will likely be well-received by the rest of the photo world. Our full review should provide even more answers to our questions about the K20D. If you have any specific question, chime in on the comments and we'll do our best to address those as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
50 Comments
View All Comments
Tridion - Sunday, March 23, 2008 - link
Here is also some high iso images:http://highiso.net/images.php?Sort=isospeedratings...">http://highiso.net/images.php?Sort=isospeedratings...
Justin Case - Sunday, March 16, 2008 - link
As usual, we get a lot of specifications lifted from the camera's brochure, and a lot of images of the camera, but not a single photo taken with the camera. This is like reviewing Doom 4 by posting pictures of the box and DVD instead of screenshots from the game...shira - Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - link
Does the K20D have any special provision for cleaning the CMOS? A friend of mine with the Canon IDs Mark II (approximately same megapixel count as the K20D, though with a full-screen CMOS) complains how time-consuming it is to clean the CMOS on the camera, which becomes increasingly important as image quality increases. Canon has now implemented a "shake" function to clean the CMOS on the MK III version of the IDs, which represents a real time-saver. Does the K20D have a similar function?benplaut - Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - link
First of all, it has a "sensor shake," as do many newer camera (my K10D has this, too). Second, it has an anti-static coating over the lowpass, which does quite a bit of good. Finally, it has sticky spots around the mirror box to catch dust as it is shaken off--not sure how effective it all is, but I've yet to have a single dust spot on my K10D in three months of owning it. Of course, welded dust still needs to be wet cleaned.Kiwaiti - Friday, March 14, 2008 - link
Sensor shake is ideally suited to the Pentaxes because their sensors are positioned magnetically for the in-body shake reduction. I think my K20D shakes its sensor even more violently than K10Ds I've tried.In case manual cleaning is still necessary, there is a new feature on the K20D showing an image of the sensor with a representation of the surrounding mount as you see it when cleaning, the sensor showing black spots for dust on a white background. The dust map is also saved to a separate folder on the SD card.
gar655 - Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - link
The 17-55IS is NOT $1300. It's about $800, which is in line with the price of the 16-50 Pentax and Oly 12-60. It is not built as well as either, nor is it weather sealed.It is, however, much better optically than the Pentax 16-50 and as good or better than the Oly.
That said, the K20 looks like a great camera for the price, especially for landscape and portrait work.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - link
We went deeper than a cursory check of lens prices for this reply. Amazon.com is normally competitive with the the best legitimate price for lenses, and they are now $1100 for the 17-55mm IS. We also checked B&H which is currently $999. BTW B&H sells the Pentax for $699 and Amazon sells the Pentax for $679. With those prices we have changed the price for the Canon lens in our review to $1000.Since reviews of the Olympus 12-60mm have proclaimed it the lowest distortion zoom of its type ever tested your conclusion that the Canon is better optically sounds like wishful thinking. The Pentax lens is extremely sharp but it does have more distortion than the 17-55mm Canon, however, so we would likely accept your claim that the 17-55mm IS Canon is better optically. As you point out, though, it is not weather-sealed or built as well as the Pentax or Olympus lenses.
Hulk - Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - link
This Megapixel race in dSLR's is concerning me. This isn't a numbers game but a image quality issue.Please show some 100% crops of this Pentax verses the 40d and some other C sized sensor cameras. Please use prime lenses at F/8 to try and minimize lens variation effects.
Let's see how good this camera is on a per pixel basis.
haplo602 - Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - link
I would disagree, pisel peeping does not help much.It's the final print that matters, so you need to select a target print size and use the same printing technology and equipment for all contenders, then you can compare.
The megapixel race is a bit meh if it is not coupled with NR and dynamic range improvements to utilise the new resolution to the fullest.
Hulk - Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - link
I am not a pixel peeper. Great photography is about composition, light, shadow, and conveying emotion to the viewer. It's not about technology.But this camera review is about technology. I would like to see full scale comparisions as well but unless we look on a per pixel basis we don't know if the increases in sensor technology is keeping up with the mad race to advertise more pixels.
My money is hard earned and I'd like to see the pixels.
Plus I'm quite sure doing a comparision at equal size prints will show virually no difference until print sizes are large enough to start to discern pixels anyway. Then we'd be pixel peeping again!
The point of higher pixel count is increases resolution at higher print sizes right? So let's get to it and see at per pixel? I'm willing to be objective but I'd like to see both tests.